get_knowledge

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation ('get') and does not describe response format, permissions, error behavior, or what 'details' means. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no structured behavioral metadata.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (three words), but it borders on tautology with the tool name. It is not verbose, yet it sacrifices substance. Every word is concise but not every word adds value beyond a minimal statement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what 'details' includes. It does not. It also lacks any context about how this relates to sibling operations. For a simple get tool, it is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter knowledge_id with a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is complete, the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get knowledge details' clearly identifies the operation as a retrieval of knowledge-related data using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_knowledge_base or list_knowledge, so it's clear but lacks sibling scoping.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.